Roger Federer: Tennis Star Continues to Make History at Shanghai Masters
Roger Federer's historic 2012 season got even better this week at the Shanghai Masters as he accomplished something that no men's player has ever done with his third-round victory against Stanislas Wawrinka.
Roger Federer wins at Shanghai Masters, will remain No. 1; 1st men's player to be No. 1 for 300 weeks since rankings began in 1973.— ESPN Stats & Info (@ESPNStatsInfo) October 11, 2012
After watching the way Federer played in 2012, there's reason to believe that he can break Andre Agassi's record as the oldest No. 1 ranked player in men's history. Agassi was ranked No. 1 at age 33.
Federer will play Marin Cilic in the quarterfinals of the Shanghai Masters, but even if he doesn't win this tournament, no one can argue that this season has been one of the finest in the Swiss star's career.
There have been several seasons in which Federer has won more Grand Slams than in 2012, but his amazing perseverance is what will make this season special.
As the competition continued to get better, Federer rose his game to another level. Many players his age—with all the titles he has—would either retire, or accept the fact that their time on top of the sport is up.
Federer is still determined to add more Grand Slam singles titles to his resume, and if he displays the same desire to win that he did throughout this year, he will have a chance to win 20 Grand Slams before he decides to leave the sport for good.
There's no reason why Federer can't play into his mid-30s because he is still playing very well, and puts in the time and effort needed to stay in top shape.
Before this season, Federer hadn't won more than five singles titles in one year since 2007, but if he wins the Shanghai Masters this month, he will have his seventh title of 2012.
Federer has improved his already stellar resume in Shanghai, and as his 2012 season comes to a close, the Swiss star has plenty of reasons to be optimistic heading into 2013.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?